G3D Mark is a standard benchmark that measures graphics performance in real-world gaming scenarios. It simplifies comparing cards from different brands, where higher scores directly correlate with better fps and smoother gaming experiences.

Head-to-Head Verdict, Benchmarks, Value & Long-Term Outlook

This comparison brings together gaming FPS, raw graphics performance, VRAM, feature set, power efficiency, pricing context, and long-term value so you can see which GPU actually makes more sense.

GeForce GTX 1660 Ti with Max-Q Design

2019

Why buy it

✅50.4% more average FPS across 50 tracked games in our benchmark data.
✅50% more VRAM for high-resolution textures and newer games (6 GB vs 4 GB).

Trade-offs

❌Limited future-proofing: older hardware, 6 GB of VRAM, and weaker feature support mean it will age faster in upcoming AAA games.
❌Lower G3D Mark per dollar, at 0 vs 36.8 G3D/$ (Unknown MSRP vs $229 MSRP).
❌20% higher power demand at 60W vs 50W.

Radeon PRO W6400

2022

Why buy it

✅Delivers 100+% more G3D Mark for each dollar spent, at 36.8 vs 0 G3D/$ ($229 MSRP vs Unknown MSRP).
✅More future proof: RDNA 2.0 (2020−2025) on 6nm with a newer platform for upcoming games.
✅Draws 50W instead of 60W, a 10W reduction.

Trade-offs

❌Lower average FPS than GeForce GTX 1660 Ti with Max-Q Design across 50 tracked games in our benchmark data.
❌Less VRAM, with 4 GB vs 6 GB for high-resolution textures and newer games.

GeForce GTX 1660 Ti with Max-Q Design

2019

Radeon PRO W6400

2022

Why buy it

✅50.4% more average FPS across 50 tracked games in our benchmark data.
✅50% more VRAM for high-resolution textures and newer games (6 GB vs 4 GB).

Why buy it

✅Delivers 100+% more G3D Mark for each dollar spent, at 36.8 vs 0 G3D/$ ($229 MSRP vs Unknown MSRP).
✅More future proof: RDNA 2.0 (2020−2025) on 6nm with a newer platform for upcoming games.
✅Draws 50W instead of 60W, a 10W reduction.

Trade-offs

❌Limited future-proofing: older hardware, 6 GB of VRAM, and weaker feature support mean it will age faster in upcoming AAA games.
❌Lower G3D Mark per dollar, at 0 vs 36.8 G3D/$ (Unknown MSRP vs $229 MSRP).
❌20% higher power demand at 60W vs 50W.

Trade-offs

❌Lower average FPS than GeForce GTX 1660 Ti with Max-Q Design across 50 tracked games in our benchmark data.
❌Less VRAM, with 4 GB vs 6 GB for high-resolution textures and newer games.

Quick Answers

So, is GeForce GTX 1660 Ti with Max-Q Design better than Radeon PRO W6400?

Yes. GeForce GTX 1660 Ti with Max-Q Design is the better GPU overall here. You are getting 50.4% more average FPS across 50 tracked games in our benchmark data, 1.9% higher PassMark G3D performance, and 6 GB vs 4 GB of VRAM. It also comes from 2019 instead of 2022, which helps its case as the more complete modern gaming card.

Which one is more future-proof for 2026 and beyond?

Radeon PRO W6400 is the more future-proof choice for 2026 and beyond. You are getting a newer 2022 generation instead of 2019, better upscaling support with FSR Upscaling / FSR 4 (2025) instead of no meaningful modern upscaling stack, and a 6nm process instead of 12nm. That broader feature stack should age better as more games lean on modern upscaling and frame-generation support.

Which one is the smarter buy today, not just the cheaper card?

GeForce GTX 1660 Ti with Max-Q Design is priced in an unclear MSRP range at an unclear MSRP versus $229 MSRP, and you are getting 50.4% more estimated average FPS across 50 tracked games in our benchmark data and 1.9% higher G3D Mark. Radeon PRO W6400 still holds the G3D-per-dollar lead, so the performance win comes with a real value premium. If you are comfortable paying the premium for the stronger gaming result, GeForce GTX 1660 Ti with Max-Q Design is the one to buy. If staying closer to budget matters more, Radeon PRO W6400 still makes more sense on price alone, but the performance trade-off is much harder to justify by current standards.

When does Radeon PRO W6400 make more sense than GeForce GTX 1660 Ti with Max-Q Design?

Yes. Radeon PRO W6400 is still an excellent gaming GPU in 2026: it is still comfortable for 1080p and decent for 1440p, though 4K is more situational. It makes more sense if your priority is newer architecture, lower power draw (50W vs 60W), future-proofing, and staying closer to $229 MSRP more than squeezing out the extra headroom of GeForce GTX 1660 Ti with Max-Q Design. The trade-off is that GeForce GTX 1660 Ti with Max-Q Design currently gives you 1.9% higher G3D Mark and 50.4% more estimated average FPS across 50 tracked games in our benchmark data. Radeon PRO W6400 still holds the G3D-per-dollar lead, so the performance win comes with a real value premium.

Games Benchmarks

Real-world benchmarks and performance projections based on comprehensive hardware analysis and comparative metrics. Values represent expected performance on High/Ultra settings at 1080p, 1440p, and 4K. Modeled using a Ryzen 7 9800X3D reference profile to minimize specific CPU bottlenecks.

Note: Performance behavior can vary per game. Specific architectures may perform better or worse depending on game engine optimizations and API implementation.

GeForce GTX 1660 Ti with Max-Q Design Benchmark Check

Radeon PRO W6400 Benchmark Check

Path of Exile 2

Preset	GeForce GTX 1660 Ti with Max-Q Design	Radeon PRO W6400
1080p
low	80 FPS	107 FPS
medium	69 FPS	95 FPS
high	59 FPS	81 FPS
ultra	39 FPS	67 FPS
1440p
low	70 FPS	95 FPS
medium	62 FPS	80 FPS
high	46 FPS	67 FPS
ultra	30 FPS	56 FPS
4K
low	26 FPS	45 FPS
medium	25 FPS	42 FPS
high	17 FPS	31 FPS
ultra	14 FPS	28 FPS

Open GeForce GTX 1660 Ti with Max-Q Design Open Radeon PRO W6400

Path of Exile 2

Path of Exile 2

Counter-Strike 2

Preset	GeForce GTX 1660 Ti with Max-Q Design	Radeon PRO W6400
1080p
low	219 FPS	165 FPS
medium	192 FPS	130 FPS
high	145 FPS	97 FPS
ultra	117 FPS	63 FPS
1440p
low	166 FPS	108 FPS
medium	141 FPS	85 FPS
high	112 FPS	64 FPS
ultra	89 FPS	45 FPS
4K
low	98 FPS	56 FPS
medium	82 FPS	44 FPS
high	66 FPS	35 FPS
ultra	51 FPS	22 FPS

Open GeForce GTX 1660 Ti with Max-Q Design Open Radeon PRO W6400

Counter-Strike 2

Counter-Strike 2

League of Legends

Preset	GeForce GTX 1660 Ti with Max-Q Design	Radeon PRO W6400
1080p
low	387 FPS	333 FPS
medium	309 FPS	292 FPS
high	258 FPS	212 FPS
ultra	193 FPS	173 FPS
1440p
low	290 FPS	235 FPS
medium	232 FPS	211 FPS
high	193 FPS	158 FPS
ultra	145 FPS	123 FPS
4K
low	193 FPS	137 FPS
medium	155 FPS	124 FPS
high	129 FPS	85 FPS
ultra	97 FPS	56 FPS

Open GeForce GTX 1660 Ti with Max-Q Design Open Radeon PRO W6400

League of Legends

League of Legends

Valorant

Preset	GeForce GTX 1660 Ti with Max-Q Design	Radeon PRO W6400
1080p
low	235 FPS	285 FPS
medium	197 FPS	206 FPS
high	160 FPS	180 FPS
ultra	135 FPS	146 FPS
1440p
low	178 FPS	210 FPS
medium	153 FPS	149 FPS
high	120 FPS	132 FPS
ultra	97 FPS	104 FPS
4K
low	96 FPS	105 FPS
medium	76 FPS	76 FPS
high	60 FPS	67 FPS
ultra	45 FPS	51 FPS

Open GeForce GTX 1660 Ti with Max-Q Design Open Radeon PRO W6400

Valorant

Valorant

Check FPS for your specific build

Technical Specifications

Side-by-side comparison of GeForce GTX 1660 Ti with Max-Q Design and Radeon PRO W6400

GeForce GTX 1660 Ti with Max-Q Design

The GeForce GTX 1660 Ti with Max-Q Design is manufactured by NVIDIA. It was released in April 23 2019. It features the Turing architecture. The core clock ranges from 1140 MHz to 1335 MHz. It has 1536 shading units. The thermal design power (TDP) is 60W. Manufactured using 12 nm process technology. G3D Mark benchmark score: 8,589 points. Launch price was $229.

Radeon PRO W6400

The Radeon PRO W6400 is manufactured by AMD. It was released in January 19 2022. It features the RDNA 2.0 architecture. The core clock ranges from 2331 MHz to 2331 MHz. It has 768 shading units. The thermal design power (TDP) is 50W. Manufactured using 6 nm process technology. It features 12 dedicated ray tracing cores for enhanced lighting effects. G3D Mark benchmark score: 8,428 points.

⚡

Graphics Performance

The GeForce GTX 1660 Ti with Max-Q Design scores 8,589 and the Radeon PRO W6400 reaches 8,428 in the G3D Mark benchmark — just a 1.9% difference, making them near-identical in rasterization performance. The GeForce GTX 1660 Ti with Max-Q Design is built on Turing while the Radeon PRO W6400 uses RDNA 2.0, both on 12 nm vs 6 nm. Shader units: 1,536 (GeForce GTX 1660 Ti with Max-Q Design) vs 768 (Radeon PRO W6400). Raw compute: 4.101 TFLOPS (GeForce GTX 1660 Ti with Max-Q Design) vs 3.58 TFLOPS (Radeon PRO W6400). Boost clocks: 1335 MHz vs 2331 MHz.

Feature	GeForce GTX 1660 Ti with Max-Q Design	Radeon PRO W6400
G3D Mark Score	8,589+2%	8,428
Architecture	Turing	RDNA 2.0
Process Node	12 nm	6 nm
Shading Units	1536+100%	768
Compute (TFLOPS)	4.101 TFLOPS+15%	3.58 TFLOPS
Boost Clock	1335 MHz	2331 MHz+75%
ROPs	48+50%	32
TMUs	96+100%	48
L1 Cache	1.5 MB+500%	0.25 MB
L2 Cache	1.5 MB+50%	1 MB

✨

Advanced Features (DLSS/FSR)

The GeForce GTX 1660 Ti with Max-Q Design gives access to NVIDIA DLSS (Deep Learning Super Sampling), widely regarding as the superior upscaling method for image quality. The Radeon PRO W6400 relies on FSR (FidelityFX Super Resolution), which is capable but generally slightly noisier than DLSS in motion.

Feature	GeForce GTX 1660 Ti with Max-Q Design	Radeon PRO W6400
Upscaling Tech	Upscaling support	FSR Upscaling / FSR 4
Frame Generation	Not Supported	Not Supported
Ray Reconstruction	No	No
Low Latency	NVIDIA Reflex	AMD Anti-Lag

💾

Video Memory (VRAM)

The GeForce GTX 1660 Ti with Max-Q Design comes with 6 GB of VRAM, while the Radeon PRO W6400 has 4 GB. The GeForce GTX 1660 Ti with Max-Q Design offers 50% more capacity, crucial for higher resolutions and texture-heavy games. Bus width: 192-bit vs 256-bit. L2 Cache: 1.5 MB (GeForce GTX 1660 Ti with Max-Q Design) vs 1 MB (Radeon PRO W6400) — the GeForce GTX 1660 Ti with Max-Q Design has significantly larger on-die cache to reduce VRAM reliance.

Feature	GeForce GTX 1660 Ti with Max-Q Design	Radeon PRO W6400
VRAM Capacity	6 GB+50%	4 GB
Memory Type	GDDR6	GDDR6
Bus Width	192-bit	256-bit+33%
L2 Cache	1.5 MB+50%	1 MB

🖥️

Display & API Support

DirectX support: 12 (12_1) (GeForce GTX 1660 Ti with Max-Q Design) vs 12.2 (Radeon PRO W6400). Vulkan: 1.4 vs 1.2. OpenGL: 4.6 vs 4.6. Maximum simultaneous displays: 4 vs 2.

Feature	GeForce GTX 1660 Ti with Max-Q Design	Radeon PRO W6400
DirectX	12 (12_1)	12.2+2%
Vulkan	1.4+17%	1.2
OpenGL	4.6	4.6
Max Displays	4+100%	2

🎬

Media & Encoding

Hardware encoder: 7th Gen NVENC (GeForce GTX 1660 Ti with Max-Q Design) vs VCN 3.0 (Radeon PRO W6400). Decoder: 4th Gen NVDEC vs VCN 3.0. Supported codecs: H.264,H.265/HEVC,VP8,VP9,MPEG-2,VC-1 (GeForce GTX 1660 Ti with Max-Q Design) vs MPEG-2,H.264,HEVC,VP9,AV1 (Decode) (Radeon PRO W6400).

Feature	GeForce GTX 1660 Ti with Max-Q Design	Radeon PRO W6400
Encoder	7th Gen NVENC	VCN 3.0
Decoder	4th Gen NVDEC	VCN 3.0
Codecs	H.264,H.265/HEVC,VP8,VP9,MPEG-2,VC-1	MPEG-2,H.264,HEVC,VP9,AV1 (Decode)

🔌

Power & Dimensions

The GeForce GTX 1660 Ti with Max-Q Design draws 60W versus the Radeon PRO W6400's 50W — a 18.2% difference. The Radeon PRO W6400 is more power-efficient. Recommended PSU: 500W (GeForce GTX 1660 Ti with Max-Q Design) vs 500W (Radeon PRO W6400). Power connectors: PCIe-powered vs PCIe-powered. Typical load temperature: 85°C vs 70°C.

Feature	GeForce GTX 1660 Ti with Max-Q Design	Radeon PRO W6400
TDP	60W	50W-17%
Recommended PSU	500W	500W
Power Connector	PCIe-powered	PCIe-powered
Length	—	168mm
Height	—	69mm
Slots	0-100%	1
Temp (Load)	85°C	70°C-18%
Perf/Watt	143.2	168.6+18%